House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 55% of the vote.
Budget Implementation Act, 2004 April 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Joliette spoke, among others, about the plunder of the EI fund. Together we toured the Haute-Mauricie to talk about the softwood lumber issue. I know he made suggestions that were welcomed by workers there. I would like him to tell us what the government should have done to help my area and other areas in Quebec that have been hurt by the softwood lumber dispute, instead of using the EI fund to pay back its debts, since that money belongs to the workers.
Social Housing March 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, during a recent visit to Quebec, the Prime Minister raised expectations and high hopes with respect to social housing. Lobby groups such as FRAPRU have expressed their great disappointment at having to wait for election promises in order to find out what the government's true intentions are for social housing.
How does the Prime Minister explain that there is not one cent in his budget for the development of social housing?
Employment Insurance Program March 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but congratulate the hon. member for Charlevoix on triggering this debate to which I want to add my voice.
Yesterday, I participated in a television program in my region, looking into how this government could be made to be a little more sensitive to the immoral situation that prevails. We just talked about people who are unemployed during part of the year and who do not qualify for employment insurance benefits. Yet, the government is using the EI fund to pay off its debt.
But who should pay for this debt? Is it the workers who earn $20,000 or $25,000 per year or, rather, those who do not even contribute to the employment insurance program? I would have liked to have more time to elaborate.
I am always outraged when I see that those who contribute to the EI program are the workers who earn $39,000 a year or less. This means that the EI contributions of a seasonal worker who makes $20,000 or $25,000 annually are based on his full salary. And, in the end, this worker does not even qualify for benefits when he loses his job.
The motion of the hon. member for Charlevoix is so logical that I would like, as a minimum, to extend my assistance to him. This is not the end of it. We will likely soon be campaigning for an election, and I promise we will raise the subject everywhere. It is very dishonest to take people's money and use it for a purpose other than the one it was contributed for.
When workers buy insurance, it is for help during hard times. If we insured our homes against fire, for instance, and, after a fire, learned that the government had taken the money to use for something else, there would be a major uproar. But that is what is happening to 61% or 62% of workers. The money that was put into a fund to help them out during hard times is being taken out, and only 39% of contributors qualify for help when they do lose their jobs.
Some solution must absolutely be found. I am asking you how this government could be made more aware, more honest. What can we do to make them react and give people at least part of what they are asking for, that is, more honesty in the administration of money that is theirs, and not ours?
This motion is so clear that I feel it should not even need discussing to gain it virtually unanimous support in this House. Again, I point out that, if nothing is done right away, I fear that, during the campaign, the Prime Minister will again be travelling around the regions making promises, as was done the last time. I am sure that the workers will remember.
Let us hope for changes. Let us hope for a unanimous vote in favour of this motion.
The Budget March 25th, 2004
I will close by saying, since he spoke of a minimum income for seniors, that it exists. There is the guaranteed income supplement. I do not know if he would agree with me that more efforts should be made to extend the supplement to those who do not receive it. We do not wish to add services, perhaps only this particular one, so that we can reach out to the people who are unable to apply for this supplement, so that they can receive it after all. This affects some 200,000 Canadians.
The Budget March 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Liberal member and his concerns about the budget and seniors. I know that he is basing his comments on the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, who toured Canada to take the pulse of the nation and, perhaps, influence the budget.
I wonder to what extent the overall concerns of Canadians are reflected in this budget.
I would like to know what percentage of the concerns or recommendations expressed by the committee have been incorporated in the budget. The member's concerns interest me a great deal.
He had a lot to say about the health care system and a wide range of things that need to be improved for seniors—things which fall entirely under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The federal government has no business in home care. The provinces and Quebec—which has CLSCs and an entire health and prevention system—should be providing home care.
What Quebec and the other provinces are asking for is money. Some 55% of our taxes go to the federal government. Part of that money, namely anything concerning health, education, and municipal affairs, has to be returned to the provinces so that they can cover the services they would like to see provided to seniors.
I wonder if he agrees that rather than accumulating surpluses, if the federal government gave the provinces what they are owed to run this particular area, these services would not be duplicated, and less money would be spent, leaving more available for the provinces to give to seniors.
He also spoke—
The Budget March 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I will speak through you, of course. I am deeply shocked when they praise the zero deficit in a balanced budget.
I would like to know if my Liberal colleague would be proud of his accomplishment if he had paid off his debt by taking his neighbours' salaries and palming the expenses off on them? That is exactly what Canada is doing. I am not proud of this balanced budget.
The budget was balanced at the expense of the employment insurance fund—which does not belong to them—to the tune of $45 billion, in addition to the $3 billion that was stolen from seniors. The balance also rests on cuts to health services and education for Quebec and the other provinces. It is easy when the government grabs money in areas outside its jurisdiction, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. In Quebec, 55% of our taxes go to the federal government. We have to get down on our knees to get that money to come back to Quebec. When it does come back, we hear about it for years, as though we had asked for a handout. Yet, we do not even get what we are owed.
Personally, a balance like that does not make me proud. I would be proud if the federal government had balanced the budget honestly.
The Budget March 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the last comments made by the member opposite. He said, “The major challenge for Canada at this time is demographics”. I would say that the challenge currently facing us is democracy.
It is incredible what you are doing to democracy. You know, when you are busy bragging about your—
The Budget March 24th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance showed once again that he cares nothing about the most vulnerable in our society. There are no concrete measures to grant fully retroactive guaranteed income supplement benefits. Yet he had no qualms about doing eligible seniors out of $3.2 billion in guaranteed income supplement benefits.
Rather than taking money from the most vulnerable to pay down the debt, the Minister of Finance would have been better advised to ask the Prime Minister to repay the money he saved in tax havens. When he was finance minister, the Prime Minister introduced Bill C-28 with its retroactive tax benefits for shipping companies.
Therein lies this government's real priority: retroactive measures for the rich but nothing for the poor.
Supply February 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member opposite talking about amounts of $500 million and $200 million. These figures sound impressive and give the impression that the government is unbelievably generous. However, what is needed for producers, who are not responsible for the losses that they are incurring, to stay alive, to maintain their production and to stop getting discouraged or even committing suicide, as some have? How many hundreds of millions of dollars do these people need? Has the government taken a close look at this?
The amounts that the hon. member mentioned may seem impressive to a person who is not familiar with the situation. However, they are measly in light of the existing needs.
Supply February 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for his question.
The current crisis is having a major impact on dairy producers. Cull cows can represent 25% of a dairy producer's net income. When a cow can no longer produce milk, it is sold for meat, and the profits of the sale represent 25% of net income, at times. Sometimes too, we use this money to make our payments.
There are young producers in my riding. One of them called me this morning to ask what he should do to make the payment on his farm. His father would have some money set aside, but this man is just starting out and has nothing. This is an important source of income that allows him to put food on the table and make the payments on his farm.